conservation of Euros
in [Design]
|
Prev: Ebay sniper software
Next: need cheap pressure sensor
From: Joerg on 22 May 2010 14:08 Jim Thompson wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > [snip] >>>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >>> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? >> >> Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >> glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >> little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >> anymore, that's now history. > > Unions at their finest. > That might as well have been the underlying cause. I know several businesses that closed to get out from underneath that. >> Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. > > Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore? > I'd have no problems buying an American truck or large sedan such as a Crown Victoria. Smaller cars, not likely. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: krw on 22 May 2010 14:15 On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>>> Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. >>>> >>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >> >> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? > > >Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >anymore, that's now history. Why do you think Toyota moved out of Kalifornica? Why haven't you? Toyota still manufactures a *lot* of their NA cars in the US. Hundai has a plant fifty miles down the road from me and Kia has a new plant 30 miles the other way. >Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. ....and Canuckistan. Wouldn't have one. Why are you changing the subject?
From: krw on 22 May 2010 14:15 On Sat, 22 May 2010 10:19:53 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >wrote: > >>krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >[snip] >>>>> >>>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >>> >>> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? >> >> >>Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >>glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >>little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >>anymore, that's now history. > >Unions at their finest. Not to mention Kalifornica at it's best. >>Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. > >Does anyone buy an American brand vehicle anymore? Yes.
From: John Larkin on 22 May 2010 14:28 On Sat, 22 May 2010 09:38:20 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:52:24 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 May 2010 03:08:36 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>>>>> example. >>>>>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>>>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>>>>> price per unit versus volume. >>>>>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>>>>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>>>>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>>>>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >>>> Few cars sold in the US are made in Japan or Korea. >>>> >>> Mine was made in Nagoya. >> >> Why do you insist that anecdote = data? > > >Why do you think the NUMMI plant was shut down? It might get a little >glimmer of hope now that Tesla wants to build electric cars there in a >little corner of that huge plant. But Toyota doesn't build there >anymore, that's now history. That was the last UAW plant Toyota had. Their NUMMI investment is, I suspect, all PR, and cheap PR at $50 million. The Tesla is of course absurd. > >Oh, and AFAIK many of the Dogde trucks are made in Mexiko. Most VWs sold in the US are assembled in Mexico. I think most Hondas are assembled here. John
From: John Larkin on 22 May 2010 14:30
On Sat, 22 May 2010 08:50:50 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:45:07 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> JosephKK wrote: >>>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 07:47:38 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> JosephKK wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 16:30:12 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 15:27:01 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 19 May 2010 09:42:44 -0700, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 18, 2:46 pm, Charlie E. <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> <major snippage and attributions...> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1 only buys $0.77 worth of _stuff_ today, say the Fair Tax people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (AIUI). The rest goes to taxes hidden in the item's price. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tax-deferred the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $1.40, I could buy $1.00 worth of stuff. Any after-tax savings (that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is socked away before the change) gets hammered *twice*. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had tax-deferred the $1.40, you'd escape the indignities of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> old system. That's a windfall (assuming Congress allows it). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going forward though, with income-taxed money, the $1 we have left >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still buys the same with or without the Fair Tax. $1 with embedded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tax burden hidden inside it, or ($0.77 actual price + $0.23 Fair Tax) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> both cost you $1 at the register. No loss of purchasing power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the contention, AIUI. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The other false assumption is that the price would drop >>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneously to $.77 as soon as the tax was passed. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't assume that. There are all sorts of 2nd and 3rd-order >>>>>>>>>>>> effects. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In reality, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the price stays at $1.00, and the retailer uses this 'profit' to pay >>>>>>>>>>>>> off his loans. Now, as time goes by, prices 'might' drop, but I >>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't bet on it. I actually expect prices to rise. >>>>>>>>>>>> I expect prices to fall, quickly. Like with gasoline there's a delay >>>>>>>>>>>> for goods-in-transit, then market forces handle the rest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why would a Japanese car or Chinese-made flatscreen TV fall in price >>>>>>>>>>> quickly? >>>>>>>>>> Because there is more than one manufacturer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> With consumer electronics the number of manufacturers inside the US is >>>>>>>>> often zero. >>>>>>>> I don't see the relevance. >>>>>>> The relevance is this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When a group of "experts" claims the price of goods will fall because >>>>>>> the income tax burden of the labor in a product will drop by 23 percent >>>>>>> that assumption is flawed for two reasons: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a. Most consumer products are from China and, consequently, not one iota >>>>>>> will change in the tax on labor. The only cost that changes is the labor >>>>>>> associated with the sales and distribution process but that's miniscule. >>>>>> I don't think so. The final retail distribution is rather expensive and >>>>>> labor cost driven. Take a look at the volume pricing at Digikey for >>>>>> example. >>>>> I am looking at Walmart and Costco. There's nobody working there that'll >>>>> crack one can of pickles out of a 4-pack. You either buy the 4-pack or >>>>> you don't have pickles for lunch :-) >>>>> >>>> You are confusing unit of issue, intentional recruiting at minimum wage, >>>> and business designed for those conditions with price per unit and delta >>>> price per unit versus volume. >>> >>> What's confusing about this? Whether it's Walmart or Amazon or whatever, >>> competition forces such places to live on rather slim margins. The same >>> is true in the auto business. Yeah, the dealer/middleman might make >>> $1k-$2k but the other $15k go to Japan or Korea. >> >> Dealers usually get mote than that, like 3k to 5k per car, more for >> luxury lines like Lexus. Go ask if you don't believe me. > > >Nope, not so. I was being generous here, they usually do not even get >anything close to 10%: > >http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/09/sales-drop-pushes-prices-down-squeezes-dealer-margins.html > > >> Please respond to the volume pricing at Digikey (and most electronic >> retailer/wholesalers). > > >Digikey is different, and not at all a factor in this game. Their higher >prices for small volumes have simple reasons. For example, someone has >to pay for the antistatic bag for the lone AD603 you order to test an >AGC. The people (or increasingly robots) who pick must be amortized by >the minute. Same for shipping department space and so on. All this cost >is nearly identical whether you buy one AD603 or a whole reel. >Consequently you must pay $10.50 for one, $7.10/ea for 100, and $6.50/ea >if you buy bulk. Sound pretty normal to me. Hint: For lower quantities >you can often get by with a lesser penalty at Mouser but they search >engine is the pits, IMHO. > Order a sample from TI, and Digikey will ship it to you, overnight, free. John |